Howbeit we know after a time there will now be a general reformation, both of divine and humane things, according to our desire, and the expectation of others: for it is fitting, that before the rising of the Sun, there should appear and break forth AURORA, or some clearness, or divine light in the sky; and so in the mean time some few, which shall give their names, may joyn together, thereby to increase the number and respect of our Fraternity, and make a happy and wished for beginning of our Philosophical Canons, prescribed to us by our brother R.C. and be partakers with us of our treasures (which never can fail or be wasted) in all humility, and love to be eased of this worlds labor, and not walk so blindly in the knowledge of the wonderful works of God.

måndag 4 april 2011

The question of Divine Evil: Dualism and the Golden Dawn – Part Two

o

I would like to share with you some of my thoughts that have been raised in recent discussions, following my pervious essay on this matter, and in particular on the subject of “evil” versus “good”. I would agree with the standard Golden Dawn definition that “evil” may be regarded simply as “unbalance” or lack of equilibrium. Thus the only difference between a “good” order and an “evil” one lays in the whole, not in its parts. When you view the corresponding part of both a “good” and an “evil” system of arrangement you will see the same innate nature in both, in the sense of being two sides of the same coin. It is when you regard the whole system that you will notice a difference; the “good” system is the world of harmoniously working and integrated Sephiroth on the Tree of Life, while the “evil” system shows differentiation, disassociation, disharmony and chaos in its corresponding Qlippoth. But is has to be remembered that both the Sephiroth and the Qlippoth share the same innate nature, which has its origin in the Divine. Thus, if there is an evil, this is also part of God. The Qabalah is quite clear on this subject.

There is lot of symbolism in the Golden Dawn ritual and teachings that refer to a primal or primordial chaos, which is associated with the Kings of Edom, while the King of Israel symbolizes the orderly cosmos. Thus in the Golden Dawn ritual corresponding to the 4°=7° Grade of Philosophus we find the following sentence:

Ere the Eternal instituted the Formation, Beginning and End existed not. Therefore, before Him, he expanded a certain Veil, and therein has instituted the Primal Kings. And these are the Kings who reigned in Edom before there reigned a King over Israel but they subsisted not. When the Earth was formless and void; behold this is the reign of Edom; and when Creation was established, lo this is the reign of Israel. And the Wars of Titanic Force in the Chaos of Creation, lo these are the Wars between them.

These Kings of Edom are also associated with the primordial Serpent or Dragon Force, which evokes both the image of the great Mother Goddess Tiamat from the Babylonian Enûma Eliš and also the Dragon from the Revelation of St. John. Thus in the Stella Matutina (the later derivative of the Golden Dawn) ritual corresponding to the Grade of Portal we find the following words:

The Realm of Chaos and of Ancient Night, ere ever the Aeons [Sephiroth] were, when there was neither Heaven or Earth, nor was there any Sea, when naught was, save the Shape Unluminous, formless and void. To and fro in the Deeps, swayed the coils of the Dragon with 8 Heads and 11 Horns. Eleven were the curses of Mount Ebal, eleven the Rulers of the Qlippoth, and at their head were the Dual Contending Forces.

Another Golden Dawn symbol of the force which brings order to the primordial chaos is Thoth, the god of wisdom, magic, mathematics and of architecture. In the Book of the Voice of Thoth (Ritual “Z”) we find the following opening sentence:

The Speech in the Silence; The Words Against the Son of Night; The Voice of Thoth before the Universe in the presence of the Eternal Gods; The Formulae of Knowledge; The Wisdom of Breath; The Radix of Vibration; The Shaking of the Invisible; The Rolling Asunder of the Darkness; The Becoming Visible of Matter; The Piercing of the Coils of the Stooping Dragon; The Breaking forth of the Light; All these are in the Knowledge of Thoth.

Thus what we have here is an implication that “evil” precedes “good”, that creation is good while the primordial state of non-creation or un-creation is seen as evil. Thus the Qlippoth (Evil Demons) as manifest in our World of Matter and Action seeks annihilation; the drive towards total destruction. It may be compared to the Freudian death drive seeking extinction and a return to the womb versus the life instinct urging us forward towards individuation.

Here it is interesting to seek out the etymology of the word “annihilation” which have its origin in the Latin root nihil or “nothing”. Thus a literal translation of the word annihilation is “to make into nothing”. In the Holy Qabalah we have the so-called “Three Negative Veils of existence”, which precedes creation, represented as the primordial Ain (“No-Thing”), which leads into the Ain-Soph (“Without Limit”) and lastly into Ain-Soph Aur (“Limitless Light”), before the emanation of the monad or Kether (“Crown”). Thus the primordial Chaos may be seen here as the equivalent of the Qabalistic concept of Ain or No-Thing.

Now, what I am about to say may be outrageous to some individuals and perhaps even blasphemous to others. I understand the controversial nature of this doctrine as it has taken many years for my conditioned Christian mind to accept and integrate the following message: If we are to follow the way of the antinomian Qabalah of the Golden Dawn into its logical conclusion, we also have to deal with the fact that the very innate and purest essence of Godhead or the ALL shares a basic “urge” in common with the Qlippoth of Matter, i.e. that of maintaining non-existance, all encompassing darkness and unluminous void.

The Sabbathian doctrine or philosophy speaks of this and has created a concept called the “thoughtless light”, residing in the primordial Ain-Soph, which tries to prevent creation or existance. But we have to remember that the Sabbathian doctrine also states that on the level of the Ain-Soph, which represents the next stage in the process of creation after Ain, there is also created the ambivalence in the “mind” of the Goodhead, represented as a contest between the “thoughtful light” versus the “thoughtless light”. Thus we see here the manifestation of both the willing and unwilling nature of Godhead, which later manifests as the “evil” left-hand emanation and the “good” right-hand emanation of God as symbolized by the two Pillars upon the Tree of Life, all according to the Sabbathian doctrine which permeates the Golden Dawn Tradition.

The Fallen World in the Abyss of Serpents

Through the Fall of the World and of Man an Abyss of Serpents were created below the Garden of Eden, creating the World of Action or Assiah as we know it, but also the World of the Qlippoth. Thus, according to the Sabbathian Qabalah, this explains how we perceive our World as differentiated (i.e. unbalanced) and base. But it has to be remembered that this lack of balance exists both in the Macrocosm (World) as well as in the Microcosm (Man). Thus, according to teachings of the Golden Dawn, we all have our own “Evil Persona” to deal with, symbolized in the Hall of Neophytes as Oomo-Shatan-Apophis. But this force is not contrary to the Divine nature or things.Thus let us not forget that Satan (according to The Book of Job) is one of the Sons of God; indeed he does the dirty (albeit divine) handiwork of God. As we can see from the above quotations from Golden Dawn formulae this “satanic” or “luciferian” urge is an innate part of God, not at all his opposite or opponent as taught in the Christian Church. Until we as spiritual seekers deal with this fact we will never gain true illumination or become as God.

Oomo-Shatan-Apophis

Many spiritual seekers, such as the traditional Gnostic followers, look upon the World and all they are able to see is Evil manifesting in every part of worldly existence, while the Divine is seen as being held apart from it in some transcendent and exalted existence. Thus, to become as God they seek to escape from the body and hurl themselves into the purely spiritual. But this concept is a fallacy as all of existence is part of God, and ultimately good, albeit in a fallen state in our World of Action. So, if you want to become truly as God you have to be both transcendent and immanent at the same time, i.e. be conscious of your Spirit, Soul and Body simultaneously.

I have an fundamentally Alchemical (Hermetic-Tantric) outlook on this, which always involves “matter” as well as “spirit”. It is of course possible to experience pure spiritual states or planes, and that aspect of spiritual work also has its merit, but to be able to brake the cycles of reincarnation I truly believe that you have to integrate your inner essence with your manifest outer self; i.e. learn to master the matter. Only then may you become consciously immortal – i.e. partake of the immortal nature of God – and become a real co-creator. Even if your most terrestrial or base husk eventually must die, this doesn’t mean that a purified part of your Elemental and material body may not survive death. It can according to the Master Alchemists and that of the Dzogchen and Tantric masters.

It may seem to us that our body “traps” our soul, but this is only because it is yet in a fallen state. With our body being “trapped” (note the quotation marks) I mean that our Soul is limited and restricted in its expressions – in the normal case – while working through the body. This I and many alchemist before me, both in the Orient and Occident, hold may be remedied on the level of the physical, as well as in the astral, mental, etc. It has to be remembered that in Ceremonial Magic one must use all Four Elemental Weapons, also the Magical Pentacle or Disc; the principle of Magical Manifestation.

Earth Pentacle

Alchemy aims at purifying the body, emancipating it, for it to become “alchemical”; Tantrikas calls it (the end product) the “Diamond Body”, Dzogchenpas the “Rainbow Body” and Hermeticists the “Solar Body of Light”. Yogis and Tantrikas believes it’s possible to become emancipated from sickness, as well as render the body immortal and able to take flight, etc. This is also the Hermetic position. As I mentioned earlier, I do believe in the ability and worth in pursuing also purely “spiritual” exercises, apart from the body. However I also believe that the difference of opinion between Alchemists and Gnostics lays in equating the Self with “spirituality”. Surely enough, the Self is beyond the body, but with my emphasis upon the body I’m not pursuing any materialistic philosophy. No, contrary to materialism I regard both my Self and Body as equally Holy.

Is the Great Mother or Goddess of Nature any less important than the Great Father or God of the Heavens? No, its only “fallen” and may be raised to its former glory and union with its Divine Consort. Thus my perspective on the body is purely spiritual; it is the vessel or cup of my Spirit or Self. It is through my body that the Divine Spirit finds expression; with my Alchemy and Theurgy I’m simply trying to make it a better vehicle or expression for the Divine. Let us raise the Goddess!

38 kommentarer:

Just wanted to say, excellent post brother. Understanding Divine "Evil" becomes much more straightforward when viewed through an Alchemical viewpoint. Even the phrase "Fallen" when referring to the Great Mother of the World has an air of morality about it and could lead to misunderstanding by those un-initiated into Alchemy, who may not understand "Fallen" as a representation of descent into physicality/away from full spirituality and Union. The Great Mother isn't demeaned by her state; she is as God intended her to be. Ahh, you know what I mean. Thanks for the excellent post, Brother.

I agree with you that "descent" is a better word than "fallen". However, I always try to use a Golden Dawn perspective when I discuss Alchemy on this blog, as my readers mostly come from that tradition (as do you). Thus in the Golden Dawn we talk about the fall (for example in the appended diagram on the Garden of Eden after the Fall, etc.).

This is based upon the Qabalistic perspective, which had some strong Gnostic influences in its early formative years, Gnosticism in turn being inspired by the narrative about the Garden of Eden, which of course talks about the Fall of Adam and Eve, etc.

Thus I use a symbolic and mythological language, as does the Golden Dawn Tradition through its rituals and imagery. Mythology and rational argument shouldn't be conflated or mixed up. When I speak of a "fall" this sends a message to the subconscious not to the rational and lingual mind.

Our empirical experience tells us that we must perfect our bodies until they reach their divine form, which is their birthright. Hermeticism and Alchemy teaches us that, although Below is as Above, we must separate the fine from the gross, etc. A purification is needed. If there wasn't some sort of debasement involved in matter this process of repeated purifications wouldn't be necessary, both in physical alchemy and in theurgy.

This said, everything is Divine and Holy, matter as well as spirit, body as well as soul. Even the Qlippoth are holy and may be raised to their divine original state.

Thus this talk about "fall" isn't about sin or guilt. It's about fact and necessity, giving the message about a spiritual formula, describing a state that we are in wheter we like it or not, something we must take resposibility for and work upon our perfection, to finally reach Summum Bonum.

So there is ultimately speaking, no difference between good and evil? There is no real difference between what Hitler did, and what mother Theresa did? Is that really reasonable? Besides having absurd implications, your view seems philosophically incoherent and morally abhorrent. Please, take your position under serious reconsideration. Your reference to the bible also seems faulty. That Satan in the bok of job is among the "Sons of God" does not means that he was approved by God, rather that it hr belonged to a certain angelic category. Just like a human, regardless of being evil or not, is still a human.

@Aenigma: You are hopelessly trapped in a dualistic world view which is overly simplistic, and thus false. However, I don't blame you being such; this is the common trait of the conditioned mind.

Mine is not true either, but at least it tries to embrace the fact of the complexity of existance, that truth is not always at it seems and should bee looked for even further than in the obvious.

We have all our dark and brighter sides. You just showed us your dark ones, showing off such uncompromising and jugmental opinions towards me. But that's o.k. This is not uncommon in the conditioned mind.

However, to me this line of thinking which you represent only serves your own defence mechanisms of the ego; pointing your finger towards that "evil" person outside of you insted of looking into the mirror and looking for it in yourself. Demonisation is an easy escape strategy (or mechanism).

Hitler also had his two-sided nature. As well as he could hate an entire race he also could love his close ones. He was a vegatarian and abhored hunting of animals.

Mother Theresa also had her two sides; as well as she did help the sick she also showed the typical repressing traits of the common christian Catholic missionary: http://www.fitz-claridge.com/Articles/MotherTeresa.html

Thus I don't believe in evil or good humans. Humans are simply humans - of a two-fold nature. To become more than humans we must unite all opposites within us. That means stop pointing fingers (i.e. projecting) and start looking inside and scrutinizing oursleves.

There are good and evil actions though. All people are capable of both. Why? Because we are the microcosm - a reflection of the macrocosm which also expresses this two sided nature.

You have a faulty understanding of Biblical (that is Hebrew) mythology. An Angel is by definition a messenger of God, a principle which expresses His Will. Satan surely is one. Was he evil in tempting Job, or did he simply put Job's faith to the test, as he did with Jesus in the desert.

Were the Angels which God sent to Sodom and Gomorra, to destroy these cities and massacrate all their inhabitants, evil as well? Is that an good act? Please don't tell me it was an act of love.

Nothing can be un-approved by God. In Him we live and move and have our being. Noting that exists can be outside of Him. Nothing.

Everything is an expression of Him. He is the ALL. The ONE. We as humans, and the Sons of God, are parts of Him. To become more than human is to become a Son of God.

Dear Thomas, Thank you for your response. I see al lot of problems with you reasoning however. Since you brought up a lot of issues it will be a long answer, and I will answer in two parts. Hope that is ok. First, your psychologizing of me is irrelevant and seems a bit patronizing. It is nothing but simple personal attacks.

Secondly, why can you not believe that there is right and wrong, good and evil, and still embrace the complexity of existence?

Thirdly, to claim that I have been showing an “uncompromising and judgemental opinion” towards you, is just plain false, read my post again please. Where is the judgmental opinion expressed? Can nobody question you position without being judgemental? Rather it give the impression (if we are to do some psychologizing,) that you have *projected* your own attitude on me. I am rather deeply troubled with the position that there are no good and evil or that good and evil are one, and that God is both good and evil.

Fourth, your claim that Hitler and Mother Theresa had two-sides is insufficient for your position. No one has claimed that people are absolutely good or bad, No one is only the characterization we give them whatever that might be (i.e 'intelligent', 'stupid', 'nice'). Still if a person are characterized by a certain behavior, for example, in general doing and saying intelligent things, we attribute this trait to them. Why would we do different with concepts like 'good' and 'evil'?

Fifth, you are inconsistent in claiming that there are good and evil actions, by what standard are those actions measured if good and evil ultimately is one and the same thing? And why can't we claim that people are good or bad when their actions can be described as such? Moreover, your position again have absurd implications. It would mean that we have no reason to, say, punish nazi war criminals – they bear no moral quilt – they are simply 'humans' Does that sound reasonable to you?

Moreover you talk about balance of the opposite, but is that “good”? No, on you account it would be both good and evil (?) which makes the whole motivation for it to collapse.

Sixth, I do not have a faulty understanding of Biblical mythology. You have. Terms like 'angel' 'god', 'son of God', 'son of the most high' does not necessarily mean 'A messenger of God' but also something that is clearly in enmity with God. Several passages in the bible show this (Ps 82; Jude 1:6; Rev. 12:7-9.) Why not just compare with the statement “An angel from Satan” (2 Corinthians 12.7-10) and realize this.

(Part II) The seventh, the answers to your questions are easy. The angels was sent to Sodom to perform a judgement of the inhabitants. It was not an act of love towards them, rather it was an act of love towards justice. If somebody deserves the punishment of death, then it is not in itself evil to execute such a punishment. Or do you claim that every punishment of criminals also is “evil”?

The eight, that nothing can be 'unapproved' by God is ambiguous between (1) that God takes pleasure and intentionally wills everything that happens in itself, and (2) that God permits certain things although God does not approve of them in themselves, but permits them for a higher order of good. (Which presupposes that there is an eternal difference between good and evil). Your position is seemingly (1) which makes God “evil” and I hold to something like (2) which is compatible with God being perfectly good while still retaining his sovereignty.

The ninth, you state: “We as humans and and Sons of God are part of him.” Here you confuses God being the sustaining cause of everything and that he is everything. An infinite difference. You state that “Everything is an expression of him” Also the rape of children? Is it God that rapes God? Is that a plausible position? What do you mean?!

Finally, if God is both equally good and evil, why not claim that to “become more than human is to become a Son of Devil?” Is not that an equally correct description given that God also is equally evil?

To me it seems rather that it is your view that is overly simplistic but also incoherent and have absurd implications and thus is false.

1. No personal attack was intended. I simply said that it is a common trait by the majority to look outside of oneself and condemning your neighbour instead of looking for the evil inside of you. Besides, it was you who started to admonish me to "reconsider" my opinion. I simply told you too take a look of yourself in the mirror.

2. I never said that there is no “right” or “wrong” or “good” or “evil”. I simply said that these two facets of existence are both stemming from the divine. The ancients understood that better as they saw evil deities being part of the cosmic forces. In Hindu mythology, you have Kali,wich is part of the great cosmic All as is any other of the good deities.

3. Well you said that my opinion was “absurd” and “morally abhorrent”. Quite strong words in my opinion, which may be regarded to be judgemental (especially the “moral” part). However, I do respect your right to nurture the opinion that God cannot be evil. On this point, respectfully I disagree with you. We simply have to agree to disagree.

4. Qualities of “good” and “evil” are no absolutes in most cases. On the contrary, they are frequently quite arbitrary, and follows the tides of the times, current paradigms and contemporary society. To use the two examples already suggested; the nazis themselves regarded themselves doing the handiwork of the good, ridding humanity from what they believed to be evil and a threat to mankind. Some regard Mother Theresa and others of her kind to represent pure evil, remote from any good. Etc.

However, I must add that you picking such extreme examples as Hitler and Mother Theresa, or rapists even, is quite typical of someone who wants to effectively silence this kind of problematization or discussion. To be honest, I regard it to be simple rhetoric. These types of behaviours that both Hitler and Mother Theresa, or any other exceptional or deviant examples, showed don’t represent any typical traits in human behaviour. I am talking about darkness and brightness which resides in all of humanity, in both great and small, but still within the common man. Picking extremes won’t further any fruitful discussion or lead to a greater understanding of human behaviour.

Although I do believe that there are absolutes regarding truth and ethics, it is quite difficult as a human to know which is actually a “good” behaviour and a “bad” one. Most acts are adequate. Not all, of course, but most. Even those that the majority regards as objectionable, or even abhorrent. In my profession I work in counselling and many behaviours that my clients are showing are condemned by most in our modern society (even by me sometimes), but still looking closely what actually motivates them or in what context (and from which history) they are acting, their behaviour is as adequate as mine.

5. I never said that good and evil is the same thing. I said that they are two aspects or contraries within the same thing. To use the theories of Freud. He talks about the death and life instincts. But he also talks about fusion of them two, as the death instinct (in the form of aggression) may serve the life instinct. Thus, in fusing “good” and “evil” you effectively root out the worst evil behaviours in man and may even enhance the good ones, as lots of psychic energies are stored up in what we consider to be bad and repressed aspects of ourselves.

Regarding punishment. Should we kill murderers or rapists, etc. No, I don’t believe in the “eye for an eye” philosophy of the Torah. It cannot be a question of government sanctioned revenge. Should we incarcerate criminals. Yes, we should correct criminal behaviour, both for the sake and security of our community and for the sake of rehabilitation of antisocial behaviour.

That said, we still must understand what is regarded as being criminal or antisocial behaviour today has not been regarded as such yesterday, or even will be regarded to be in the future. Our conceptions of what is normal and abnormal, or even criminal, changes with the times.

6. I specifically referred to Hebrew lore. That passage from the Psalms I have hard time interpreting. What is meant by “gods”? We know that in Exodus the God of the Hebrews waged war against the ancient Egyptian Gods. Can this be a reference ot lesser pagan gods? But the references from the New Testament is an entirely different matter. Christians introduced the concept of “fallen” angels, an idea foreign to the Hebrews. I was speaking from the original point of view of the Old Testament. I don’t agree with Christianity’s dualistic world view (although the concept of “fallen angels” is a good mythical motive to understand certain cases). The Hebrews understood questions of evil and good better IMHO. My conclusions arrives from reading Hebrew mysticism, i.e. the Holy Qalalah.

7. Yes, I regard Capital punishment to be both offensive and criminal. I regard the U.S. invasion of Iraq to be “evil”, as well as any war waged against any country. And yes, all destructive forces are part of the “evil” sphere, including God killing men, women and children because of their sins.

However, the process of putrefaction is also part of the evil phases of existence, as well as death (remember the death instinct of Freud), but it serves the life as well. In all cycles of life and nature you will see the destructive and constructive forces supersede each other in a cyclic manner. When in equilibrium, it upholds life and promotes evolution. Likewise, war can also be waged in the name of “good”; any power or country starting a war regards it to be justified according to what it considers to be good (and evil).

8. Actually I believe that God transcends both “good” and “evil”, especially the human conceptions of these two terms (which I believe is a construction that changes with the times). But God is also the source of both forces in nature and universe, and in man, which we may regard as “evil” and “good” in their expressions.

9. My God is both transcendent and immanent. Yes, Man i part of God. We as humans express divine intention and will. Through creation and through Man, God beholds God, in whatever aspect that you may imagine.

10. I don't believe in the Devil (or Satan). If he even exists he surely is on God's payroll. But why would I like to become one with any aspect of him, be it Samael or Michael or whatever intermediary, as I could become one with the All?

Dear Thomas, I will continue to answer using the enumeration system. I still see problems with your position.

1. Come on, give me a break. I only asked you to reconsider your position, which hardly can be even close to a personal attack. I be more suspicious with allegations that someone is “hopelessly trapped in a dualistic world view which is overly simplistic”, that I have “showed us” the “dark side” in “showing off such uncompromising and jugmental opinions.”and that “this line of thinking which you represent only serves your own defence mechanisms of the ego”. If that not is not irrelevant personal attacks and exaggeration and a patronizing psychologization, then what it is? But I will deepen myself in that irrelevant stuff. Let us look at the arguments instead.

2. Your position of right and wrong is internally incoherent. Now what do you mean when you call 'God' both 'good' and 'evil'? Either you are merely saying that you happen to prefer the one to the other—like preferring beer to cider—or else you are saying that, whatever dual qualities God has, and whichever we humans, at the moment, happen to like, one of them is actually right/good, and the other actually wrong/evil. Now if you mean merely that you happen to prefer the first, then you must give up talking about good and evil at all. For good means what you ought to prefer quite regardless of what you happen to like at any given moment. If "being good" meant simply joining the side you happened to fancy, for no real reason, then there would be no difference in sense between 'good' and what you 'prefer' and your whole conception of 'good' and 'evil' collapses. But you are not just trying to say that God has one side that you happen to prefer and one side that you don't happen prefer are you? It would make your whole essay quite uninteresting and the whole discussion misguided. So you must mean that one of God's sides is actually evil/wrong and the other actually good/right. But the moment you say that, you are putting into the universe a third thing in addition to the two sides in 'God' you call 'good' and 'evil': a higher standard of good which one of "God's sides" conforms to and the other fails to conform to. But since the two sides are judged by this standard, then this standard would be the real God and what you called 'good' was that which was conformed to this ultimate standard, while that you called evil was that which failed to conform to it. Thus, the highest being appropriately called 'God' cannot be both good and evil: what is the criterion for goodness cannot be but perfect goodness in itself.

3. My claim of absurdity of your position is simply my judgement of its entailments. Whether this claim is “judgemental” or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is whether the judgement is correct or not. In contrast to you I do consider entailments that Hitler was God, that a rapist is God (and thus that God is raping God) is absurd, and I think most other would as well. (And why do you bother about whether it is judgemental or not, when your position is that any judgement is arbitrary including your own?)

4. O boy there is a lot of fallacies here. You are confusing opinions of what is good and evil with what is good and evil. Unless you claim that disagreement over morality is a reason to believe that right and wrong does not exist, then you have no argument at all. And if you argument is that, then it is self-refuting because there is disagreement over that very argument (the argument from disagreement) I for example disagree with it. Secondly, although there has been disagreement over morality, basic moral principles is similar in different cultures world wide. I think that the Nazis did deep in their heart know that what they did was wrong, otherwise they would not at the end of the war had tried to hide what they had done.

Thirdly I can assure you that my examples where certainly not simple rhetoric, rather it is a one of the most common used argument through history: reduction ad absurdum. One deduce the implications of a position and show that it is absurd. If your position entails what most people would regard as absurd and hence it constitute a refutation of that position. That it does not represent typical traits in human behaviour is beside the point. The point is that your position implicates the absurdities I have stated. The discussion will not be fruitful until you realize that. I am not saying that those traits are typical, the point is that your position entails these absurd things. Fourthly, the word 'adequate' is vague and it is difficult to discern what you mean. You seem to confuse the judgement of a character with a judgement of his acts, or that we would change our assessment of someone when we have more facts, which is trivial. Of course somebody can do wrong things without being an extraordinary evil character.

5. With respect to your claim that good and evil are two aspects within the same thing, and that they can be fused, see my reply to (2). With respect to the claim that repressed aspects of ourselves should be acknowledged, I think you are right. The truth will set us free (John 8:32).With respect to punishment I think you are wrong. One cannot, how much one may want it, eradicate the notion of retribution in punishment since it is constitutional of the concept of justice: one should give people what they deserve. Secondly why *correct* criminals if we cannot claim to know what is right and wrong? What conclusion do you want to draw from your claim that our conceptions may change with time? That we should not regard anything as antisocial because the notion may change?

6. You are wrong to claim that the notion of fallen angels were foreign to OT. That evil powers were under God's sovereign decision is true of OT as well as of NT (which does not change the fact that they were God's enemies). The reference is not to lesser pagan Gods. You seem ignorant of the OT research concerning the God and his divine counsel. Within the order of angelic beings there were higher ranking beings that were part of the very counsel of God (EL the most High), and they are also called “elohim” (gods) or “bene elohim (sons of God). Some of these rebelled and become enemies “fallen” or whatever you want to call them. The psalm is about Gods judgement of them. Some of them was thrown down to the abyss, kept until the judgement of the world, some were not. But that is another story. You are right that the Cabala had a more “pantheistic” view (with all the problems that comes with it) but the OT does not.

7. You are very inconsistent and at many levels. On the one hand you call me judgemental when I pass a moral judgement, but you do not hesitate to pass judgement that capital punishment is “wrong”. This is also implicit in other statement you make. Or do you only state that you have another taste . .? Moreover, simultaneously you admit that the were killed for their sins. Do you mean that even though they deserved death, it would be 'wrong' to execute that punishment? That is a clear self-contradiction. If x deserve something one cannot simultaneously claim that it is wrong to give x what he deserves.

8. Four severe problems with this argumentation: First, see my answer to (2). Secondly , to state that God 'transcends' good and evil, is to fail to realize the asymmetric relation between good and evil. That you do some good deeds will not erase your moral quilt of doing evil ones. If God is *both* 'good' and 'evil' then he is 'evil' and indifferent to human suffering, and is morally defect bearing moral quilt. Murder cannot erase his moral quilt by sending money to poor people and so on. Thirdly you are again inconsistent with regard to your use of terms. If there is no consistent meaning of 'good' and 'evil' you have not even conveyed any meaning of your statement. Since we do not know what you mean with 'good' and 'evil'. Fourthly, you cannot have the cake and eat it. Do you claim there are anything that should be considered good and evil in absolute sense or not?

9. This again have all the implications stated earlier: that God is constituted by people like Hitler and Stalin and that God beholds himself in them. Right, you can claim that but is it a reasonable position?

10. Here you are inconsistent again. Your rhetorical question assumes that it is more valuable to become one with the 'All' in contrast to becoming one with Satan. But on your world-view there is no absolute standard of value that regulates that the “All” have more value that “Satan”. The 'All' is beyond any value and value is something arbitrary and thus the 'All' have no real value. Moreover, according to you everybody including Satan, is already part of the “All” which make the very notion of *becoming* one with the 'All' meaningless. What have you *achieved*?

@Ainigma: I sense it is futile to continue this conversation as you are only using "common sense" to your arguments. Whereas I'm not. I base my opinions on intuitive knowledge, which is not always easy to explain rationally.

And yes, you are are true that I'm inconsistent! I strive to be! Existance is a paradox. As I want to become one with existance, I must also seemingly assume a paradoxial attitute.

I question the validity of pursuing this debate as we are diametrically oppose to each other. What would further debate serve other than create even more confusion and relegating it to simple rethoric?

I have no personal interest in you accepting my premises. I have no interest in further showing the world how fundamentally wrong you are in your assumptions.

The more we delve into this question and problematize, the more confusing it will seem to the public. Questions of evil and good has always been a hot potatoe, and a lively discussion which has never been resolved fully, neither theologially nor philosophically. Nor will it ever if only resorting to pure logic and reason.

You may pick my arguments apart how much you like, using analysis, sounding as your position is the most rational in its components parts. That's o.k. I won't stop you.

But I on the other hand find the notion of anything being outside of the ALL or GOD to be wholly unrational and absurd. However, I don't feel that conviction in my brain, but in my heart. And the heart is such a much more important organ than the brain.

Thus if we agree that there is evil and good in the world and in man (which we do), then also evil must be a part of GOD. Sabbathian Qabalah confirms this. And it doing this it becomes heretic, or if you prefer "unrational" or "illogical" - the modern equivalents of being a heretic.

I don't have all the answers to satisfy your reason, nor can I present a worldview which is logcally solid. At least not when it concerns the particulars. But I do know and firmly believe that there cannot be anything outside of God's will to power.

So, let us agree to disagree. However, in closing, I do have a question for you:

Do you consider Sodomy (i.e. homosexuality) to be a sin that should be punishable by death?

I would like to compliment you with your posts and comments on this somewhat difficult subject. Your remarks are very fitting. I do believe however, that to try and explain these things to someone who is living a religious dogma, someone who hasn’t yet spiritually matured to a high enough level or doesn’t at least have a knack for spirituality, might at least for the moment be useless.

In fact it makes me think of trying to explain sex to a 7 year old who of course hasn’t yet the development nor the experience to properly grasp the subject at hand. One 7 year old might get a vague idea, another resents it and yet another might even start to experiment, but there will never be a full understanding of what sex is until one has reached the proper level of sexual maturity and has had the experience of sexual intercourse.

Also, if one is raised within or is subject to a religious cult like Christianity or simply conditioned by the principles that society hopes to imprint upon our being, it will take a lot of courage for one to try and learn how to see things in a different light.

I stumbled upon your posts while in the middle of reading Jung’s Memories, Dreams, Reflections which made the event a truly synchronous one. The book is for the largest part about Jung’s own Spiritual development and while following his story it becomes easy to see how a man (in this case Jung) derives upon the same conclusions as your own in this matter.

There is also an anecdote in the book wherein a young Jung is standing in front of a Cathedral and looks up and envisions God sitting upon his throne high above the Cathedral’s roof and while doing this he suddenly feels an evil thought approaching and so with all his might he represses this thought and tries to go on with his life but already while walking home his anxiousness is becoming harder and harder to bear. But yet he manages to repress this thought for about 2 or 3 days but can’t find sleep nor rest while doing so. Eventually he gives in and lets this thought approach. In Jung’s own words:

“I gathered all my courage, as though I were about to leap forthwith into hell-fire, and let the thought come. I saw before me the cathedral, the blue sky. God sits on His golden throne, high above the world and from under the throne an enormous turd falls upon the sparkling new roof, shatters it, and breaks the walls of the cathedral asunder.”

And so this "sinful" thought led him not only into a blissful state as he describes it, but also a step away from religious dogma and a step closer to spiritual freedom.

@Aenigma: I do not have the time nor do I see any use in reacting to your whole comment as my above comment already implies. But there are some untruths in your comment on which I would like to leave my remark.

I do not know in what world you live in, but in my world there are savage tribes that have just stopped eating each other, Muslim countries wherein women have no rights, become circumcised and are being stoned to death if they are unfaithful to their husbands and countries and cultures wherein racism and discrimination are morally accepted and homosexuality is not.

These are just a few of the basic morals on which large parts of the world I live in disagree. The examples given might be wrong in your Christian world, with your Christian state of consciousness but in my view of the world these things are symptoms of humanity in development.

The fact that the Nazi’s at the end of the war tried to hide what they had done doesn’t prove that they thought it wrong. It simply proves that they understood that the enemy saw it differently and they feared persecution.

Maybe I should remind you that Christians have had to hide themselves and their practices more than once during the course of history because a large part of the world or the society they lived in saw it differently than they did. That doesn’t mean they were “evil”. The same counts for every minority group in a hostile society. But history has also proven to us that today’s minority might become tomorrow’s majority and a whole new set of morals and beliefs become adopted as the standard norm for standard people such as yourself.

The Nazi’s believed that what they were doing was good, because their minds where conditioned in that manner. And some of them who are still alive still do, regardless of their punishment, because their minds haven’t been able to break away from this conditioning.

And so, unless we have reached a very high state of spiritual and cognitive development all of our minds stay conditioned, at least to some degree. But this is what spirituality and The Great Work is all about, to break free from this conditioning and to learn how to see things for what they truly are:

Thank you for your kind words and your contribution. Actually, I don't blame Ainigma for nurturing his opinions, as that is the preference of the majority. It's his choice; killing darlings is not something that is done easily. I also agree that this debate is futile. The reason behind this is that individuals as Ainigma only sees a world that is painted in black and white, while people as me and you also sees the shades in between. This blog isn't written for people of the former kind; it is written for the latter.

Dear, Thomas, will comment on your ”arguments” and will also answer the question, you posed. You state that I am using 'common sense' argument whereas you base your opinions on 'intuitive knowledge'. What does this mean? Do you mean that your argument should be accepted just because you claim that you know them intuitively? This claim is just appeal to authority and not a good argument at all. To strive to be inconsistent seem to be nothing but pure irrational ism (“anything goes”) since without the law of non-contradiction truth cannot be distinguished from falsehood, which also mean that your claim that I am “ fundamentally wrong in my assumption” is meaningless without that law. Do you not realize that you implicitly assume the law even when you argue against it? You are also fantastically inconsistent when you claim that “notion of anything being outside of the ALL or GOD to be wholly unrational and absurd“ (!) why do you reject such a notion because of its “absurdity” when you STRIVE after inconsistency? If 'absurdity' and 'inconsistency' is no reason to reject a position, why do you then reject the notion that something is outside of God on the basis of its 'absurdity'?! Or do you accept any inconsistency?!

Part II But there is even more severe problems with your position. Perhaps you did not know, but from a contradiction you can deduce any arbitrary statement as true (Lewis proof). That is, if one has accepted an inconsistency then it follows hat, for example, “the moon is made of green cheese” or “Thomas is a fried egg” because any statement follows as true from a contradiction. Thus from a contradiction one can truly assert that 'everything is outside of God' or that “ my heart firmly believe that God is not evil” (and every other statement as well). Isn't that as absurd it can be? But there is even more. Without the law no reason can ever by provided for any position simply because any criterion for belief (facts, experience, non-adhocness or whatever) assume that a position should be chosen because it is not ad hoc, or fits with the facts, or experience (which means that the fact, experience etc are CONSISTENT with the position in question). Thus your position refutes itself. How can you, Thomas, which is a thinking and intelligent man (which I know, I have read other of your posts) keep hold on such a obviously false position? Neither do I are about what the Qabalah states, nor what the majority thinks, but I do care about TRUTH. Have you any argument as to why one should accept everything in the Qabalah as true?! (Besides according to your position, it is both true and untrue at the same time!) I also find your comments about me in third person like “The reason behind this is that individuals as Ainigma only sees a world that is painted in black and white, while people as me and you also sees the shades in between.” as straw men and even a bit disrespectful. WHY can one not believe that God is good only and that there is ultimately a difference between good and evil, and still see the shades between? I understand that there are things that are more or less good and more or less evil, but I also understand, what you does not, that in order to have shades between something, one also have to have that which the shades are shades BETWEEN. WHY does one have to reject that there is an only good thing in order to see the shades between this thing and the evil thing? On the contrary you cannot have shades of something without having that which is not shades. You cannot have a shade between white and black without having white AND black (and that means a white without any black within). Not only are your position self-refuting but also your analogies about it(!)

Now to your question: Do I consider Sodomy (i.e. homosexuality) to be a sin that should be punishable by death? The answer is: No I don't neither does the Bible. The only crime that should be punishable by death, according to the Bible, is deliberate killing of innocent, that is, murder. The punishment for other sins, including sodomy in OT was for the Jews alone and for only a certain period. That God erased Sodom was for other sins than just sodomy which you can understand when you read that the whole city wanted to rape the strangers unto death. Please note that on your position, you cannot claim that one shouldn't kill homosexuals since it follows that one also should, and every other statement. Finally, you are not alone in having a belief in your heart. I also have that, and I believe with all my heart that God is light and there is no darkness in him. I also believe that God has ha heart, that he is not heartless, and he that does not rejoice in evil like you think God does. You seem to think, along with your “friends” that I am just another narrow minded Bible fundamentalist that has no spirituality based on experience. You are WRONG. By the way, you are not the only one that have stepped down into the abyss . . . . You are also wrong to think that the alchemical process is about fusing good and evil. Rather evil is what separates the manhood and femalehood to be fused into union. You confuses different kind of opposites. There is a difference between 'repelling' and 'attracting' opposites; the former cannot and should not be in union whereas the latter should. To be narrow-minded is to keep to your position even though it has been shown to be untenable . . . to refuse to listen to sound arguments and so forth. This attitude can be combined with any position including the position that paradoxes should be accepted. I will let the readers themselves decide which of us it is that have refuted the other, which of us has convincing arguments, and which of us is the “open-minded”.

Mario, I will respond to your first post here, and your second post later. In your first post you provide no real argument beside patronizing and fallacious irrelevant Argumentum Ad Hominem. I perceive one “argument” in your first text. It seem to be: (1)if one is raised within a religious cult like Christianity then one is not spiritually mature to understand these issues.(2)Ainigma was raised within Christianity(3)Therefore, Ainigma is not spiritually mature to understand these issues.

Besides the fact that you provide no evidence of (1) and that (2) is false, the conclusion would even it it followed from the premises be irrelevant. Even if I were not spiritually mature to understand these issues you must still deal with my ARGUMENTS which you certainly haven't. I would guess it is because you can't. In fact would you not say yourself that an attitude that says “I do not need to refute your arguments because I am more evolved like you” show a lot of arrogance? You are patronizing and claiming to be enlighten and spiritually mature seeing how the world really is. Instead of engaging with my arguments you simply just claim that I am not mature enough to understand what a “ascended master” like you have understood. But I have an advice for you, if you could accept such a thing from a undeveloped creature like me, if you really want to give an impression of being spiritually mature: engage in the argumentation and explain where the argument of the antagonist goes wrong, then you would also have shown that your position was the correct one. Otherwise you just seem arrogant.

@Ainigma: I don't strive for ir-rationality; I strive for a-rationality.

For me truth cannot be found soley on rational and intellectual argumentation (as the common man understands and defines "reason" and "intellectual"), as you seem to prefer. For me Truth just is, wether we see it or not; it transcends anything that the human brain may construe.

I don't use the word "reason" as you do; I use the original meaning of it, coming from the Greek classical understanding of the word "nous", i.e. the "intellect" or "reason" of the divine which is intuitively understood.

I never have stated that there is no "black" or no "white". Your God, which I assume you believe to be "white", and your Devil which for you represents the "black", are not the last cosmic statement on this subject. My God (the All; which is beyond any names or designations) is a power and principle which transcends your "God" and "Devil".

While I might agree with you that one could regonize a God which is good and a Devil which is evil at one level of existance, I also recognize that there is even One Greater Principle beyond these two contraries. The All.

So the problem with our discussion is that you insist on keeping the discussion at the level of contraries, of black and white and all the shades in between (the level of common sense and cerebral rationality), while I try to push the limits beyond this plane and try to understand the Greater Principle beyond (the rationality which is based upon intuition and is granted by the All).

(1)Opinions of morality have varied with culture and time etc.(2)Therefore, our,sense of morality is just determined by how we are conditioned.________(3)Therefore, God is both good and evil

Mario, do you really consider this a good argument? The conclusion obviously does NOT follow from the premises. If the conclusion on the other hand was: “absolute good and evil does not exist it is just opinions” then you are contradicting the clai under discussion: that God is both good and evil, since in that case the very labelling of 'good' and 'evil' unto God would not say anything about God, only about your conditionings. Secondly (2) does not follow from (1), and furthermore there is reason against that (2) follows from (1), it is like arguing: there are different opinions about the height of mount Everest, therefore, mount Everest does not exist. Moreover, there exist in most culture a lot of agreement of morality as well. Why is that not evidence of something real? It is on the whole difficult to see what thesis you are advancing, is it that no absolute morality exists or that God is both good and evil or what? Your statement that Christian morality is “symptoms of humanity in development” and that a “ high state of spiritual and cognitive development”break us free of “conditioning” of is SELF-REFUTING. In order to talk about development has have tacitly assumed an objective standard of value, otherwise the term 'development' becomes meaningless. You cannot say that something is more developed than something other unless you presuppose a standard as a backdropp which measures the 'development'. Do you believe there are absolute values after all?

Finally (1) how do you know that the everything truly is “Nothingness, Allness, God.”? Are you claiming to have achieved this “high” state to see that everything is a meaningless 'nothingness'? (2) Is it not depressing that everything is nothingness? (3) What do you mean by stating that all things are “Nothingness, Allness, God.”? (4) Does not this imply that Mario=Hitler, since Hitler=nothingness and Mario=nothingness? (5) What is the difference between claiming that everything is nothingness and claiming that not everything is nothingness?

First of all, if you perceive my comments in any way as patronizing or arrogant you have completely missed the point. I do not think myself more than a child because it hasn’t developed to its full potential yet. As this child grows and matures it might pass me by any time in its experience and development. And I can only encourage it to do so. But on the other hand I would never force someone to develop in one direction or the other.

If you insist on explaining difficult grammatical theories to a 4 year old who hasn’t yet developed cognitively to a high enough level to grasp such a matter, go ahead. To understand however, that doing so is a waste of time, is not arrogance, but wisdom.

Therefore, my argument definitely stands like a rock, and therefore I see no reason to deal with your arguments.

I don’t know what comment you read or you are reacting to, but in my earlier comments, I can’t find any claim of me being enlightened or seeing the world for what it really is.

I cannot prove that your arguments are wrong if you insist on a purely theoretical explanation. To understand these concepts you have to be willing to perceive them through a different lens than the one you are currently looking through.

To cite Jung again, who is here defending Freud against some unfriendly contemporaries:

“However, I thought that Freud could only be refuted by one who himself had thoroughly tried the psychoanalytic method, and who should really investigate like Freud, that is, by studying out patiently and for a long time the daily life, hysteria and dreams from Freud's point of view. He who does not or cannot do this ought not to judge Freud, else he acts like those famous men of science who disdained to look through the telescope of Galileo.”

The concepts proposed by Frater Sincerus Renatus have been proved to be true over and over by everyone who has ever reached the proper level of Spiritual and cognitive maturity, be it the Tibetan Monk or the Western housewife who practices meditation in her spare time. For most of us this actually means that we have to thoroughly try and engage in various kinds of Spiritual methods, open ourselves to other points of view, and patiently and sometimes for a long time study out various kinds of Spiritual teachings. Otherwise we ought not to judge these concepts, else we act not only like those famous men of science who disdained to look through Galileo’s telescope but also those famous men of science who disregarded Freud, who today is widely accepted as the founder of the still very much alive theory called psychoanalysis.

Now take the concept of light and darkness. To you they may seem like two extremes, there is no darker color than black in your opinion and there exists no lighter color than white. But as we spiritually evolve we always keep on finding sharper lights and darker darknesses. Where does this end? It ends, like God, in infinity. Or to put it simply: It doesn’t end.

This means that your darkness is very light from another point of view and that your light is actually very dark if one is to look at it from another angle.

So even if your light is my darkness (or vice versa), it is in both our cases still a property of God. God is the whole spectrum and thus the “Good” and the “Evil”. I haven’t denied the existence of good and evil, but they are just concepts who were invented by humans and are constantly subject to change.

That there exists some agreement over morality in some cultures doesn’t prove of any evidence of “something real” but it proves the fact that we are subject to conditioning even more, since it are other cultures who often either inspire us or subtly (or sometimes not so subtly) force us to adopt the same moral code. If one researches the various cultures in our history who have developed independently of each other in the same period of time one finds that they didn’t hold anything near the same ethical principles.

I am not saying that Christian morality is a symptom of humanity in development, but that all morality and the breach of generally accepted moral codes within a society is a symptom of humanity in development, and that this development, especially Spiritual development will set us free from all conditioning. Which means that we understand and more importantly experience that all the morals we might be left with are just expressions of the All through us, just as our own ego is but an expression of the All. These statements are therefore not self-refuting.

Yes, I believe in absolute values if it comes to development (although the borders between various stages of development aren’t always that clear, the stages themselves definitely are) . I do however not believe in absolute values if it comes to morality. As I develop, my perception changes and consequently my morals also change.

To answer your questions:

I know that everything truly is “Nothingness, Allness, God” because of experience. One does not need a lot of Spiritual growth to come to this realization. Some lucky sensitive souls achieve this realization e.g. by looking at a flower bloom or listening to a great piece of music. Such an experience can be the beginning of one’s Spiritual path but it is certainly not the end. Enlightenment is to experience this Oneness constantly. It takes longer and is harder to achieve. I have not yet achieved enlightenment.

This Nothingness is certainly not meaningless and definitely not depressing. The opposite is true. To experience Nothingness is to experience peacefulness, joy and freedom in its unconditioned and most fullest form. As Frater Sincerus Renatus already pointed out, these experiences are experienced with the heart and not with the head and are therefore impossible to rationalize. For this reason I cannot explain what I mean by stating that all things are “Nothingness, Allness, God” just as I cannot explain the experience of sexual climax to one who has never had this experience. However, to consistently practice a valid form of Spirituality will inevitably get you there.

Yes, Hitler is indeed a part of me. But since I am part of the All, I am fortunately so much more than just Hitler.

There is no difference between Allness and Nothingness. Again, this is a Spiritual and not an Intellectual comprehension.

Thomas, this discussion cannot go on forever. I have made my points and cannot see that any of your or Marios replies has given any proper defense against my objections. I have shown over and over again that your position is absurd. Thus. this post will by my final here.

I will however make another post at your third part of the series of dualism, and show that your defense against my criticism is inadequate. However in that post you bring up so many issues that time will not permit me to give objections to every thing you say that I think is faulty. Instead I will focus on the main issue whether there is evilness in the Ultimate.

Now to your dealing with reason and reality. I would rather say that *Reality* is what is whether we see it or not whereas Truth is a property of the contents of our statements. That is, a statement about reality is true of false depending on whether it correspond to Reality or not.

I agree that truth cannot be found solely in rational or intellectual argumentation, but that does not mean that one can rationally hold on to a position that is absurd, incoherent, self-contradictory and self-refuting. Intuition is simply knowledge based on immediate inference in contrast to knowledge based on a mediate inferences consisting of steps. For example that 2+2 =4 is grasped intuitively. Intuition is a source to knowledge, but it can never be “beyond” the laws of logic which are necessary for any rational thought.

This can readily be seen in your own statements. Ask yourself, what does your statement like “I also recognize that there is even One Greater Principle beyond these two contraries . .” mean unless you implicitly assume is false that “there is no greater principle beyond these two contraries”? In your very argument you have assumed the principle you seek to avoid, not to mention all other laws of logic (like law of identity and law of excluded middle, and all the rules of inference). Thus your distinction between ir-rationality and a-rationality cannot save your position. Just consider the distinction between ir-rationality and a-rationality: how could you make this distinction unless you assumed that it simultaneously was NOT true and that ir-rationality = a-rationality? Making this false distinction is just a way of trying to escape the inevitably irrationality of your position, but as you can see for yourself, it is done in vain. Furthermore to claim that there is principle beyond that is *Greater* assume that there is a *Standard of Greatness* and that the Principle in question is *great* both of which on your account does not exist. Again your position is self-refuting. You do not seem to realize that there are certain first principles that are inevitable for any rational discussion, and these principles are accepted based on intuition and they contradict your alleged “intuition” about the ultimate reality.

Finally. your position does not fit with the classical Greek, it contradict the real Greek classical understanding of “reason”. No classical greek philosopher, including Plato, Parmenides, Aristoteles or any other classical greek would ever claim that contradictions are acceptable or that the absolute truth is inconsistent. Rather the opposite, that only what is non-contradictory can be real. Plotinus talked about the One for sure which he though was indescribable, but his position is as self-refuting as yours.

Mario, if I understand your first post correctly it goes like this: you cannot show that my arguments are wrong because it cannot be understood theoretically and must be perceived with another “cognitive scheme”. It is like explaining difficult grammatical theories to a 4 year old who a hasn’t yet developed cognitively to a high enough level to grasp such a matter. Therefore, your argument definitely stands like a rock, and therefore you have no reason to deal with mine arguments. But the concepts of Sinceratus has been proven to be true by everyone that has ever reached the proper level of spiritual maturity.

Several comments are noteworthy. First consider a case with an adult trying to teach a grammatical theory to a 4 year old, and the latter showed that the grammatical theory were inconsistent, self-refuting, incoherent, had absurd implications, and that the only answer the “adult” could reply is that he is wiser that the child. I think most of us would understand that in such case it was the child that was the wise one. Secondly even if it cannot be understood theoretically it must still be able to be theoretically expressed without self-refuting, or self-contradictory, or meaningless statements. Thirdly, to claim that your arguments stands like a rock while in reality all of them has been conclusively refuted is just plain ridiculous. Fourthly, that the concepts of Sinceratus has been proven over and over again is just plain false, since a lot of people has reached a high level of spiritual maturity without believing in those concepts. Fifthly, if you really believe that what you believe cannot be theoretically expressed, why bother to post? That whereof one cannot speak, one should not attempt to speak thereof.

Mario, I will here reply to your comments of light and darkness.First, your argument about the concept of light and darkness confuses the order or knowing with the order of being. Stating that we keep on finding sharper lights and darker darknesses is no evidence that pure white does exist, on the contrary it presupposes that it exists. One cannot experience sharper x unless x does indeed exist. Your argument misses the point. Moreover we cannot truly predicate different things, good and evil, unless they really are different things and since they are exclusive to one another a subject cannot simultaneous have them in an absolute sense.

Secondly your assertion that concepts are invented by humans and are constantly subject to change is either false or meaningless. Words may change but the concept thereof considered abstractly cannot change. It just mean that a new concept has entered a known word. If you claim that the very content of thought constantly changes then your own statement are meaningless. If 'invented', 'constantly' and 'change' does not have the same meaning to you as to me and has a different meaning for each year you have not manage to state something that is intelligible.

About morality. Your argument about morality in different cultures begs the question: why is it evidence that we are subject to conditioning and not that there exist a true morality? You, (as usually) provides no evidence for your claims. Secondly your claim that independent researcher has shown that cultures does not have anything near the same ethical principles are plain false. Provide some evidence please. In which culture do they nurture that vices like cowardice, and betrayal of your own are good? Furthermore, if language, as you claim have no consistent meaning then your statement about this is meaningless as well. Just some irrational sounds in the air. Thirdly your claim that morality is not absolute since your perception changes I find grotesque since it means that you now know that all morality is always false, and in that case, why have any morality at all? Mario, about development and self-refutation. Your statements are still self-refuting; development does assume an objective standard of value, that is exactly the function of your use of the term “All” which again contradict your belief that the All is beyond description. Hiding behind the concept of the “All” does not change this. If the All is this standard for development then it must be the ideal since 'development' is meaningless without an ideal. (And an ideal cannot be both good and bad because then it would not be an *ideal*). Hence the All cannot be both good and evil or 'transcend them' it must be the perfect good since it is an ideal.

Mario, Your answers to my questions are flawed as well. That you cannot explain sexual climax to the one who has never had that experience does not entail that a true explanation thereof may be self-contradictory or absurd. If you can state anything about it that is true, then it must also be free of self-contradictions. By the way, what does your statement “I know that everything truly is “Nothingness, Allness, God” because of experience. “ even mean if terms have no consistent meaning ? What the difference between that and to state “today I will do elephant has to banana paint, hello!” or why not “dfkjlf dfjlsj sjflfjd eruouo” ? You have not even managed to state your position coherently since on your account not even words have consistent meaning. Again, whereof one cannot speak, one should not attempt to speak thereof. And if the terms have consistent meaning contrary to your position, why do other individuals experience not count as well which clearly contradict your “experience”? And why do you assume that your “experience” is self-interpreting? Experience in itself is neither true or false they are just 'sensory stuff'; it is our *statements about experience * that are true or false, and those statement can be assessed with reason. Why do you assume that your interpretation of your experience is true?

You state that “experience Nothingness is to experience peacefulness, joy and freedom in its unconditioned and most fullest form.” but this amounts to nothing else than stating that this “nothingness” is the * ideal good*! Again you have contradicted yourself. Further, how can it be joy to know that there are no values at all (values presupposes a real distinction between good and bad)? How can there be joy if the ultimate reality is also evil? What kind of person would rejoice in that? I presume only a wicked and worthless individual would enjoy such a world.

Finally, you statement that you are more than Hitler because you are part of the All is of no comfort because the same can be said of Hitler, he is also part of the All as much as you. Thus the problem Hitler=Mario still resides. Mario, if you keep on claiming that your position cannot be described and analyzed in terms of language and reason, then please do not bother to reply. Again, whereof one cannot speak, one should not attempt to speak thereof.

@Ainigma: Although I have to admit that our discussion has been interesting I have also growed weary of replying to you anymore, as as you say, we cannot present anymore agruments which will enlighten the discussion, beyond rhetoric. And then the discussion becomes boring and uninteresting.

Thus I will not answer your statements anymore. I have published them so that perhaps someone else may have a go with them.

I must warn you however: If you keep to your usual patronizing style, I won't let any more of your comments through. It is not the arguments that are the issue here, but the way in which you present them. So if you plan to post any more comments here, I urge you to consider how you present your arguments in the future.

As you can see, the first line of the Wikipedia article about Psychological Intuition tells us:

“Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason.”

Which as you can see means that the ways in which the knowledge that is acquired while making use of this kind of intuition defies the laws of logic. This, of course, is the kind of intuition Frater Sincerus Renatus is talking about.

Your example about our 4 year old child deviates pretty far from my original statement in which the child has not yet reached a high enough level of cognitive development and thus has no means by which it can prove its teacher to be wrong.

You use this trickery in which you deviate from that which was originally stated more often through your various comments. You also have a habit of snapping different lines out of our comments after which you proceed to attempt to prove them inconsistent and thereby refusing to see and reply to the bigger picture presented. I should make it clear to you that this trickery is easily observed by the intelligent reader and I can only advise you that if you cannot be true to the reader, at least be honest with yourself.

I have yet to encounter a refutation of my comments that carries some serious weight. And no, since the concepts proposed by Frater S.R. are the result of a high enough level of Spiritual Maturity there are no people who have reached this high enough level of spiritual maturity without believing in those concepts. They may be expressed with a different terminology depending on the chosen path of the Spiritual Practitioner but there meaning is the same in the end. Even your beloved Mother Teresa who still wore her Christian glasses held pantheistic opinions because of her Spiritual advancement, although she expressed them slightly different:

“The dying, the crippled, the mentally ill , the unwanted, the unloved--they are Jesus in disguise”

I bother to post because even though I cannot theoretically express certain concepts, I can surely point the way. There are always readers who are actually open minded enough to intuit that there might be some truth in my statements and are willing to find prove for themselves. This is the difference between you and me. While I have nothing to prove because prove comes inevitably to those who search in the right places, you still need to prove and disprove concepts using merely rational argumentation and refutation of everything that doesn’t fit your image of the truth. Like Frater S.R. already stated:

“Killing Darlings is not something that is done easily”

Pure White is relative to the observer. I do not need a definite shade of white or black to see that one shade is darker or lighter than another. Your “X” therefore may vary and can have a different value for every different person. Please take into account that I’m using colors and shades as a metaphor and I’m not talking about scientific wavelengths, frequencies or RGB values of colors. Please show me your whitest purest light, and I’m pretty sure I can imagine a shade even purer and more white.

If you look at the concept of Yin Yang (dark light) and its appropriate symbol you can learn how a subject can hold opposite qualities simultaneously. As you can also see, there is always some Light in Darkness and some Darkness within Light.

Everything usually changes, which means that the meaning of concepts can also change. As I already explained what we thought to be evil a couple of hundreds of years ago has become generally accepted today, so what we think of as evil has changed.

In primitive cultures where the only thing that was important was the survival of the individual they didn’t even take “vices” like cowardice and betrayal of your own into account. I don’t know if you ever heard about terms like “survival of the fittest” or “to eat or to be eaten” but these were some of the morals we had to live with during our primitive historical existence. We still see this type of behavior in primitive tribes today, in ghetto’s and in drug addicts who all form their own society and therefore seriously have to be taken into account.

As further prove I would like to present Kohlberg’s stages of Moral development:

As you can easily see, as we develop, our morals change and develop. In this case, every stage of development comes with its own set of moral attitudes. This says nothing about specific morals, since the morals of every individual can differ depending on his or her stage of development and the possible influence of society on the subject.

The All is not the Christian God who in the Christian context serves as an ideal to live up to. The All is what we are, and to come to a conscious realization of this can help us develop.

Your remarks about “sexual climax” are again a useless attempt to trick people into believing me to be wrong. There is no way to logically explain the experience of sexual climax which makes your remark completely irrelevant.

That the meaning of words don’t always have to be consistent because their meaning can change with time doesn’t mean they don’t have meaning. What’s the use of this rant? Except for another hopeless try to throw sand in the eyes of whoever reads it?

Like science, most Spiritual paths offer tools to their aspirants with whom they are able to test the truth of a certain hypothesis. One of these tools is the development of the intuition which as I have already shown does not use reason to acquire knowledge.

To call peacefulness, joy and freedom “the ideal good” is to morally judge these concepts. If peacefulness, joy and freedom are “Good” in your moral opinion than that is what it is: just your opinion. Also, I did not equate nothingness in itself with peacefulness, joy and freedom. Again you deviate from what was originally stated. I did equate the experience of Nothingness with experiencing joy, freedom and peacefulness, which says nothing about Nothingness in itself. The experience of joy while eating an ice-cream doesn’t tell us anything about the molecular structure of ice-cream.

Again I have to tell you that I never stated that there are no values at all. I accept that there is both good and evil, and in the same way it is acceptance, and spiritual experience which make me rejoice in an reality which holds them both. It is by learning how to perceive the bigger picture which makes it easy to accept this reality for what it is. It doesn’t take wickedness or worthlessness to learn how to see that this reality as we know it is not even half of what is true. It’s another Double U which opens our doors of perception, namely: Wisdom.

Yes, Hitler is also part of the All. I cannot see a problem with that, because the All still consists of much more than just Hitler.

Frater Sincerus Renatus has already pointed out that:

"Truth cannot be found solely on rational and intellectual argumentation (as the common man understands and defines "reason" and "intellectual")"

Which could lead to your understanding that we use a different kind of reason to understand one another. A kind of reason which can only be understood if one has reached the proper level of Spiritual Maturity. This means that I can speak of my experiences and opinions very well, but some people won’t understand them, which is fine.

As you know Frater S.R. also stated that:

“Individuals as Ainigma only see a world that is painted in black and white, while people as me and you also see the shades in between. This blog isn't written for people of the former kind; it is written for the latter.”

It seems to me that it is not my opinions who have been refuted but that it are your own that have been heavily refuted, otherwise you would not have to use trickery and deceit to get your “right”.

My intention was to make no more post but since Mario has posted some serious accusations I feel that I should continue to comment on his posts after all.

Mario, you accuse me of missing the bigger picture, using trickery, deceit and being dishonest to the reader. These accusation are serious and if you want to be taken serious you should justify them. It is ironic because I feel the exact opposite, that it is you that employ intellectually dishonest methods, while I try to provide as good arguments as possible. Your quote on 'psychological intuition' from wikipedia is a good example of your dishonest methods. You pretend as if the line “without . . the use of reason” means: ”defies the laws of logic” while what it really means is knowledge without the *aid* of reason. For example, when I perceive 'redness' I do so without the aid of the rational faculties, I simply intuit “redness”as a pure experience. I have studied both psychology and philosophy, and you can't deceive me on this.

Your comment on the example of the four year child is a another good example of your dishonest method. Your original point with the example was that the child represented me, and that the adult represented you, and that I could not understand these matters just like the child could not understand grammatical theories. My reply was that this representation cannot be correct since if the child would truly represent me, it would be a child that had shown inconsistencies, self-refutations, incoherencies and so on in the grammatical theories of the adult (you and Thomas). What I clearly meant was that my modified example would be more true portray of the situation. Now you replies that my modified account diverge from your original example as if that would have any affect on my argument. Her you either miss the bigger picture, or worse, is dishonest.

You state that you still awaits a refutation of your claims that carry some serious weight. I ask how can anything carry more weight than contradictions, self-refutation, incoherence? The very fact that part of your defense has been that your position is beyond the laws of logic reveal that you yourself has realized that your position is self-contradictory. Please show me how to refute a theory that allows for self-contradictions, I would really like to see that. Further if you claim that I have committed the fallacy of “straw man” in my refutations, then please show when and how I did so, just making accusations does not make it so.

I have not claimed that words do not have meaning because they change with time. The point was that if we do not have a consistent meaning in the actual use of words then nothing of what we try to communicate make any sense. Further that the change of meaning is no argument against the truth of the original meaning. Just because, let say, 'car' earlier meant 'boat' does not change the fact that boats have existed or that the meaning of 'boat' refered to something real.

I have never denied that intuition can be used to acquire knowledge, or claimed that reason alone provide knowledge. What I have criticized is to use intuition as an excuse to make knowledge-claim that are self-contradictory and incoherent. My point is that neither reason nor intuition is immune to criticism, and if someone for example claim “I intuitively know 2+2=5” this should be criticized just like any other absurd claim. You cannot escape legitimate criticism by stating “But I know this from intuition”.

You equate experience of Nothingness with experiencing joy, freedom and peacefulness, and seem now to pretend as if such a description is wholly neutral without any value content. Still in the context it seems clear that you originally stated “experiencing joy, freedom and peacefulness,”of the All against my claim that it was meaningless. But then the All is something valuable after all and not just opinions.

On the one hand you state that moral judgement are just opinions as if there are no real moral truths on the other hand you state terms that has a content of value: Wisdom, freedom etc.

Finally none of your argument seems to pertain to the question about whether the Ultimate “God” are both good and evil. I have never claimed something so naive as that there is not both good and evil, to claim that is to be dishonest. The point of discussion was how the metaphysically ultimate can be both good and evil, which implicates an eternal dualism in God. I have argued that such a notion is impossible and implicates that there is no difference between good and evil.

Ainigma won this discussion convincingly in every aspect. He showed in a brilliant way the absurdity of this Sabbatean beliefs. I would very much like to get in touch with him. SR, it was very obvious that he acted as a friend in order to help you. Unfortunately you could not see that and attacked him in an unfair and immature manner.